TSB Report C177 loss of control ILS 07 YOW Dec 14/11

[URC]

just because the freezing level was the surface, does NOT mean they encountered any in flight ice.

A PIREP for all it's worth. We landed on runway 07 about 10 minutes after the accident (B737). We were given a short hold at the IF (around 12 miles final) at 3000 feet while ATC tried to figure out what happened to the Cardinal and the status of the ILS. Arriving from the west, straight in for runway 07, the cloud tops were in the high to mid twenties from what I recall, and we were in solid continuous cloud all the way down to 200 feet. We did not encounter any icing conditions (visible ice on the wiper bolt, windows, or wings) in the descent, in the hold or on the approach. I don't recall the temperatures or the winds, maybe a little choppy but nothing particularly remarkable.

[CpnCrunch]

I have an IMC rating from the UK, which is basically a cut-down instrument rating that is only valid in the UK. It basically lets you fly in uncontrolled airspace and class D airspace in IMC, and shoot ILS approaches. Anyway, the rating has a minimum DH of 500 feet for ILS approaches, which seems like a good minimum for someone who only occasionally flies an instrument approach (although even then, you can still get into trouble if it's very gusty).

[pdw]

URC, thanks for the PIREP.

[Siddley Hawker]

CpnCrunch that sounds similar to the old Canadian Class II Instrument Rating. You could file IFR and do everything the big boys did, but the limits were higher. I seem to recall landing limits were Class I alternate limits. Basically it was a license to learn.

[pdw]

just because the freezing level was the surface, does NOT mean they encountered any in flight ice.

Arriving from the west, straight in for runway 07, the cloud tops were in the high to mid twenties from what I recall, and we were in solid continuous cloud all the way down to 200 feet.

The PIREP is 15-20 minutes after they arrived into the area, when 15 miles south approaching on a track from S/SE for CYRP. Their turns were made quite a bit north of your "short hold" (?) ...and 10-15 minutes prior.

Straight in for 07 (57T) at CYOW works out to be tracking from 237T/southwest on final (winds are calculated in degrees true for tempos etc). The Flightaware image shows the "continuous cloud" very well. The given WX tempo (mist etc) was to be between 1800 to 2000 local time, a NE cold flow almost freezing/zero (.1/.2degC, 95-100%RH) at the surface that was descending (higher pressure) from Gatineau Hills area elevations east/etc underneath that warmer southerly air toward decreasing low gradient low pressure in the Southwest (the LO is at L. Michigan).

Doc is right, still doesn't mean it's freezing at 3000ft where they had circled, about 10miles WEST/NW of the airport area, or even when 5000 feet while approaching from south/southeast 20 minutes previous. Although lapse-rate wise (the corollary of rules that apply there) we're taught that it's more than just a possibility the temps at 3000'msl would usually be 2-3 degrees Celsius lower than a ZERO Celsius at 500-600'msl at the surface. Even if 95-100%RH, ... isn't it a minimum lapse rate of minus 1degC per thousand feet of increased altitude ?

How different would it have been for an aircraft departing 07 just prior to this accident (left turnout with zero C at the surface) than this landing after the colder portion of this tempo had already passed to the WNW (arriving there from a SW/WSW track where the south-flow was already warmer and still increasing in temperature) ?

I'm now also swayed into believing the chance for encountering icing was very low.

What are the chances for unplanned wake turbulence while fitting in on short notice among the scheduled aircraft for the very nearby alternate, the busier airport ...

[Doc]

CpnCrunch that sounds similar to the old Canadian Class II Instrument Rating. You could file IFR and do everything the big boys did, but the limits were higher. I seem to recall landing limits were Class I alternate limits. Basically it was a license to learn.

And, it was a good idea. We have FOUR classes of instructor rating, perhaps we should have a Class 2 IFR rating for pilots who fly purely for recreation. If guys like me (and I'll stick my nose into pretty much anything) would not take a Cardinal into 200 foot ceilings, perhaps there's something to this?
Anybody know why we dropped the class system for instrument ratings?

I know the good Colonel will state I should be able to do a 200 foot approach in a Cardinal, and believe me, I can, but it doesn't mean I should.

[Colonel Sanders]

Doc: I would wager a large sum of money that you
could hand-fly an ILS in a Cardinal to 100 feet with
the needles in the donuts - at the end of a long day.
Hung over.

That's what a lifetime in airplane gets you.

But once again, it illustrates my point that for certain
activities - night IFR, formation, surface aerobatics -
you need to develop pilot proficency well beyond the
legal minimums, so that you have some left over "in
the bag" when you need it. Because some day, you
surely will.

Again, I apologize if that is not egalitarian enough for
some people, who want to make night IFR, formation
and surface aerobatics accessible to the masses.

The guy that crashed the 777 into the seawall at SFO.
How much did he have, "left over", when things didn't
go perfectly?

[Jack In The Box]

I should be able to do a 200 foot approach in a Cardinal, and believe me, I can, but it doesn't mean I should.

I wish this was my attitude when I came out of flight school. Fortunately, and thank God, I never got the chance to get myself into any kind of trouble before I got enough experience to realize how stupid I could have been.

I also wish some select employers would look at things this way....

[Big Pistons Forever]

Anybody know why we dropped the class system for instrument ratings?

.

The FAA didn't like it as they thought it was IFR "lite" and there was no way for them to know if a Canadian pilot flying IFR in US airspace had a Class 1 or 2 IFR rating. TC caved using the excuse the Class 2 was not ICAO compliant.

[pelmet]

I'm now also swayed into believing the chance for encountering icing was very low.

What are the chances for unplanned wake turbulence while fitting in on short notice among the scheduled aircraft for the very nearby alternate, the busier airport ...

You never can prove in an accident like this what the initiating factor was. Could have been an autopilot malfunction if one was installed or a suicidal passenger.

But most people will go with the most likely scenario based on radar track, previous training issues, etc.

While a high ceiling such as 1500 feet would have likely made a difference, I don't think 200 feet vs. a "light IFR" 500 foot ceiling would have mattered except for potential for aircraft recovery from an upset.

A 200 foot ceiling "in a Cardinal" for a relatively experienced guy is no big deal. While it is commendable to have an attitude to fly with greater margins due to potentially greater options in the event of some sort of difficulty, assuming no other hazards such as icing or buildups, etc, there is no big deal for an ILS approach with zero-zero conditions if all regulations and some common sense is used such as having a good alternate.

A pirep of no icing in a 737 is not necessarily a pirep that will prove that no icing would be encountered by a Cardinal on approach in environmental conditions right on the edge of icing potential as the TAT for the 737 throughout the approach will be higher for the 737 as its speed in all segments of the approach will be higher. Plus, some light ice on approach for the 737 might not eeven be noticed by the 737 crew due to mostly heads down activity during the approach, coupled with heated windows and any accumulated ice disappearing quickly after accumulation. That being said, it does point toward there being at most only a minimal amount of ice if there actually was any at all.

[Colonel Sanders]

At approximately 4.5 nm from CYOW, while on the ILS approach, the aircraft began to deviate north of the localizer.

The TSB report states that this guy started to have serious
problems at 4.5 nm from CYOW. If you get out the plate
and do the arithmetic (I just did) he would have been at
1500 AGL - outside the AMOBI "beacon" (FAF for LOC-only).

A huge deal is being made here about the ceiling at 200 AGL,
which the crews before and after this flight were able to
land out of.

I don't think 200 feet vs. a "light IFR" 500 foot ceiling would have mattered except for potential for aircraft recovery from an upset.

I agree - I don't see what difference a ceiling of 200 or 500 AGL
would have made to this guy, if he lost it at 1500 AGL. Maybe if
the ceiling at 1000 AGL with good visibility underneath, he would
have been able to recover from his spiral dive. Maybe. But with
all due respect to people here preaching higher minimums, I still
don't think that's a good maneuver to complete an ILS with.

This guy needed a ceiling of nearly 2000 AGL to successfully
complete an ILS, according to the TSB. I don't see how a
"class 2" IFR would have helped this guy. Having a different
colour of jacket or airplane would probably have not made a
difference, either.

[pdw]

A pirep of no icing in a 737 is not necessarily a pirep that will prove that no icing would be encountered by a Cardinal on approach in environmental conditions right on the edge of icing potential as the TAT for the 737 throughout the approach will be higher for the 737 as its speed in all segments of the approach will be higher. Plus, some light ice on approach for the 737 might not even be noticed by the 737 crew due to mostly heads down activity during the approach, coupled with heated windows and any accumulated ice disappearing quickly after accumulation. That being said, it does point toward there being at most only a minimal amount of ice if there actually was any at all.

For the northward departure a private-discussion pirep exists here (discovered this morning) ... a twin departing 07 right at the time of this Cardinal's approach heard their transmissions while already shedding ice early in climb ... so I'll attempt to discover exactly how early in climb and verification. Icing over 3000ft north of the airport would not apply to this discussion, unless there was a more-coalesced freezing precipitation descending rapidly from higher up (ie not only the mist) on that north side ... with rapid buildup..

[Colonel Sanders]

if it's enough to close a pitot tube

re-read the TSB report. They never went slower than 100 knots.

Aircraft will fly with a closed pitot tube. You can also load
INCHES of ice on a single and it will still descend on a GS,
even if you can't see sh1t out the window. I know that
to be a fact.

[Rookie50]

Remember the guy had Zero time in actual IMC. Zero. No night Recency. And 400 hrs TT.

Now some here might think, anyone who passes their training, all done in perfect day VMC with light winds and sunny skies of course, should be instantly capable of flying to a 200 foot minimum, 1 mile vis at night.

Go directly to Boardwalk. Hey, it's legal isn't it? Whats the issue? Right.

Fine, he lost it at 1500, after a descent in solid cloud from 5000, at night. I'm not sure a lot of people would do much better, their First time in actual IMC, at night. Likely got overwhelmed.

It's simply different than a hood, and my view as a new IFR pilot, is you work into actual conditions gradually and carefully. I was counseled to do that -- thank you my instructors, you were wise!

And that is pilot decision making, and setting limits on oneself appropriate to experience, and getting better training!

[Doc]

Anybody know why we dropped the class system for instrument ratings?

.

The FAA didn't like it as they thought it was IFR "lite" and there was no way for them to know if a Canadian pilot flying IFR in US airspace had a Class 1 or 2 IFR rating. TC caved using the excuse the Class 2 was not ICAO compliant.

The FAA would have no way of knowing if the Canadian pilot on approach at KORD has an instrument rating at all!
I really like the idea of higher limits for "hobby" pilots. They obviously don't have the common sense to fly within their limitations (perfect example of legal not always being safe) so the industry should I impose limitations on them. I also remember periods of validity being less on the class 2? I mean, if this guy had a limit of 500 feet.....we probably wouldn't have this thread.

[Big Pistons Forever]

Anybody know why we dropped the class system for instrument ratings?

.

The FAA didn't like it as they thought it was IFR "lite" and there was no way for them to know if a Canadian pilot flying IFR in US airspace had a Class 1 or 2 IFR rating. TC caved using the excuse the Class 2 was not ICAO compliant.

The FAA would have no way of knowing if the Canadian pilot on approach at KORD has an instrument rating at all!
I really like the idea of higher limits for "hobby" pilots. They obviously don't have the common sense to fly within their limitations (perfect example of legal not always being safe) so the industry should I impose limitations on them. I also remember periods of validity being less on the class 2? I mean, if this guy had a limit of 500 feet.....we probably wouldn't have this thread.

Doc

All perfectly valid points. However your argument that the FAA wouldn't know if a pilot had no instrument rating at all misses the point. If somebody flew into KORD with no instrument rating then they would be breaking the law. The FAA point was that somebody could fly into KORD with what they considered a less than a full IFR rating, and one that did not meet the standards of a FAA IFR rating, perfectly legally; that was the issue. I think TC just could not be bothered trying to fight the battle.

However nothing is stopping any pilot from deciding they would only fly to Class 2 limits today. I would hope that a new PPL IFR pilot without a lot of experience is going to take it easy until they have substantial time.

Frankly by the time you get to the IFR rating I don't think it is TC's job to impose reduced mins on you. If this pilot was not smart enough to figure out why as PPL IR he shouldn't be flying a 200 and 1/2 ILS at night in forecast icing conditions I really doubt having a Class 2 IFR rating would have made any difference.

[Colonel Sanders]

BPF: the TSB says this guy's ILS came to pieces
at 1500 AGL. No "class" system would have
helped him.

I know I am going to sound elitist and get the
egalitarians upset, but this guy shouldn't have
had an instrument rating. At all. The only thing
I don't understand about this accident, is how
he didn't own a Cirrus.

He could have popped the chute at the outer
marker and floated down to Barrhaven, and
stepped out on Pinecrest at Strandherd.

Pull early, pull often. Very egalitarian. Not
elitist at all.

[pdw]

... this guy shouldn't have had an instrument rating. At all.

That's by now been grandfathered as one of the factors, without a shadow of a doubt. This fact(or) was driven home almost as much in this T S B report as all the clarifications on this site.

The "itis" factor seemed to rate up there as well, gotta get home / gotta continue / got work to do / get the trip over with. The mindset is too easily dominant, not dropping the idea of getting-home as planned in the face of the sudden or uncertain weather, fatigue or other issues, and failing to to err on the side of caution; perhaps somehow, the thought of an alternative option to spend yet an extra night somewhere fools into thinking it's wasteful / too costly. If the "goal" to arrive home looked so doable to these owners, then it must not have occurred to this Pilot & Passenger (part aircraft owners) to realize how soon the only option of reaching an airport with suitable minimums was at risk of being lost entirely on this night, the way it seems to have occurred as their trip neared its conclusion.

Just want to note here that Doc's mention of the "hobby I F R " in the old days: The " class 2 " must have really had to know the weather. Say if you're the best I F R guy these days, does the weather really matter as much as it once did when holding the # 2 rating ? We might have lost sight of the basic reason why it was implemented way back, where everyone used to enter the weather office before departure to consult with a live nearby weather person for reassurance of the outlook ... or to be informed about not going when conditions were going to be too marginal.

VV001 WET SNOW

That would be sticky snow above "1500 A G L" ?

If that's plausible, then a twin-crew in initial climb-out on that same r w y 07 just minutes prior (in the middle of the W X TEMPO) might yet be found to verify their P I R E P of shedding ice early. A cold-enough laminar metal will very shortly stick-on significant precipitation that solidifies on impact on laminar surfaces with-in a sudden / isolated squall of supercooled snowflakes, catching their very C O A R S E texture (which likely sheds during crash dynamics and/or melts away quickly where it's above freezing again at 0 agl). The early responders arriving to the scene aren't there to note potential traces of melting solids that only last a short while in the warm-enough surface-air.

When a "coarse texture" is paired with a stronger isolated break-even or tail-quartering 'gusting' while higher up / still farther back ... as in that approach, where already a surface gust was recorded up at 15kts (7:19pm C Y O W WX history Dec14/2011) it quickly becomes HUGE compared to merely clean wings but with that same AGGRESSIVE component. Flying into really smooth air with some ice catch, or without ice in unusually rough air, ... is not going to be at all like approaching into "rough air" WHILE contaminated with the "coarse texture". For that reason it would be the best here to ascertain without a doubt if both (catch and gusts) were involved, or just the gusting, when " this guy's I L S came to pieces at 1500 A G L ".